• Clandestinely threaten the accuser. That failing –• Create an expedient “case”, turning the accuser into the accused, and initiate legal proceedings.• Cast doubt on the accused’s sanity, “sanity” being conformity to norms defined by the authorities.• Suspend the accused from participation in the organization.• Demand a full recantation.• Charge the accused with confusing the membership with misinformation.• Charge the accused with fomenting revolt, or revolution.• Convict, expel, and silence the accused.
The on-going case against Father Jesusmary Missigbètò illustrates this invariable chain of events. The Vatican and Opus Dei have begun “a canonical process” to “expel” him from the priesthood, in official response to his theological objections to the novel doctrines of Pope Francis. He writes that he is seeking support “to continue defending the truth of traditional Catholic teaching against the moral and doctrinal errors that Pope Francis has inserted into it.”
He further reports that he has had five death threats, presumably for criticizing the Pope.
Father Fernando Ocáriz Braña, the Prelate of Opus Dei, has stated various reasons for opening a canonical case against Missigbètò: his unwillingness either to see a psychiatrist or to request a “dispensation” (i.e. exemption) from his priestly duties, persisting “in the conduct that led to his resignation from the Prelature [of Opus Dei],” confusing the faithful, and through his conduct perhaps “promoting aversion and disobedience to the Holy See.”
We see this pattern unfold wherever high authority is challenged. It signals one of two situations: either a community member is behaving heretically, i.e. questioning or disobeying fundamental community principles and thereby threatening the integrity of the organization, or the community leadership is itself violating in word or deed those same principles to which the membership was previously pledged.
In outcome, either the accused member will recant or be caused to depart the organization, or (more rarely) the leadership may be forced or voted out of office. Leadership recantation, significantly, is not an option; leaders cancel themselves by admitting wrongdoing. But upon the departure or recantation of the accused member, or replacement of the leader, those principles will be reestablished, or reconfirmed.
If, on the other hand, the accusation is an objection to a deliberate change of principles (an accusation which can only be brought by a member or subordinate against the leadership), then for the preexisting principles to be upheld or restored requires the replacement of the leadership that made the changes. Otherwise, departure of or retraction by the subordinate signals the establishment of those changes in an essentially transformed organization. A redefinition of sanity then automatically occurs, realigning it with the new norms.
What you may have noticed is the dishonesty that inevitably accompanies an attempt to change the underlying principles of a given community system without admitting its resultant moral transformation. Hence the necessary departure of the accusing member, absent recantation, when the accusation is inevitably rebuffed. Charter Change in the Philippines, and alteration of the American Constitution are two current examples. The amendments to the International Heath Regulations being engineered by the WHO are another particularly egregious example. The realignment of the Catholic Church with the principles of wokism, alluded to above, is another. The Great Reset being imposed on the human population by the WEF and its sister organizations is yet another – though in this case Klaus Schwab has warned us that the belief that we can go back to the way things were before the plandemic “is, you might say, a fiction”. He can afford to admit this because he knows that wholesale changes made to the terms of human existence itself will not be believed, let alone agreed to, and can only be accomplished by the imposition of totalitarian “governance” and the iron fist that finally dispenses with our permissions altogether.
The involvement of psychiatry in this process is inevitable, involving the undeclared canceling of preexisting definitions of sanity on the invidious pretext that the new conditions self-evidently override the old: they are, declare the authorities, self-referentially good. Protesters are therefore judged as if the changes authority is introducing are already in effect, and the old principles guiding the morality of the protester no longer apply. Moral certainty is replaced by moral ambiguity, and might becomes right.
Pablo
